Are We Legislating Ourselves Into Extinction? - Turn Five

Back in the July issue of Circle Track, our resident engine guru Jim McFarland sat down with Comp Performance Group’s Billy Godbold. Their conversation was chronicled in that month’s “Enginology” column. In it, Godbold said, “As an industry leader, we should communicate that the most valuable product in motorsports is innovation. In spite of massive efforts by extremely smart individuals, thicker rule books always result in higher cost, less opportunity for the clever engine builders, and more dominance by very wealthy teams.”

It’s no secret that I am not a big fan of thick rule books. I, along with most of the people who write for Circle Track, believe that it stifles engineering creativity. And Godbold is correct, thicker rule books do increase costs to the racer and they do it in two ways. First off is that rule changes usually involve either forcing the racer to buy a new part or obsoleting (outlawing) a part the racer already had and is using, which most often results in the racer having to buy a new part.

The second way it costs the racer money is through the fact that the racer is going to spend more money circumventing the rules. Now I don’t necessarily mean outright cheating although that has been known to happen on more than one occasion. I am talking about going to monetary extremes in other areas of the car. One example of this would be carburetors for a 604 crate motor. By sealing the engine, you restrict the racer’s ability to make a lot of power with internal components so the option of spending upwards of a thousand or more dollars on exotic carburetor alterations is very real.

Another is shock rules. Why is it that we have to have non-adjustable shock rules? I think we all know a racer who has 20 different non-adjustable shocks hanging in his trailer all with unique valving. Is that necessarily cheaper or better than four adjustable shocks? I think not.

My fear is that our industry continually develops rules that make it increasingly difficult for people to race. Yet in order for us to get more people into the sport we have to make it easierfor them to race and easier for them to justify the cost of racing because yes racing is an expensive endeavor. If we don’t make it easier on the racer they will stop racing and if they stop racing where does it leave the track? Empty.

It seems that many tracks ignore the one rule that could cast our sport in a better light. And it falls into the one area of the rule book that I believe can’t be thick enough and that’s the section on safety. It has to do with head-and-neck restraints. Spare me the “they’re too expensive argument.” Their time has come, they do save lives and tracks just need to step up and mandate them.

Too often when tragedy strikes we want to bury our heads in the sand as the local news media outfits crucify the sport that we love. This is especially true when young racers are involved. But we have the power to show people that short track racing can be as safe if not safer for your children to participate in than sports like football. As an industry we have to band together, but we cannot do it without the track operators growing a set and mandating these life saving devices. Turn to Bob’s column this month, he has more to say on this subject. Then when you’re done with his column, check out “Racin’ Around” and read about a track that did what we are talking about. And if your track won’t mandate them, show this issue to them and tell them to get with the program!